[Federal Register Volume 63, Number 158 (Monday, August 17, 1998)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 43876-43881]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 98-21945]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Minerals Management Service
30 CFR Part 250
RIN 1010-AC39
Oil and Gas and Sulphur Operations in the Outer Continental
Shelf; Pipelines and Pipeline Rights-of-Way
AGENCY: Minerals Management Service (MMS), Interior.
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This rule implements a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU)
between the Department of the Interior (DOI) and the Department of
Transportation (DOT) regarding joint regulation of Outer Continental
Shelf (OCS) pipelines. MMS regulations will apply to all OCS oil or gas
pipelines located upstream of the points at which operating
responsibility for the pipelines transfers from a producing operator to
a transporting operator. This rule requires OCS producers and
transporters to designate the transfer point.
DATES: Effective October 16, 1998.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Carl W. Anderson, Operations Analysis
Branch, at (703) 787-1608; e-mail Carl.Anderson@mms.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: MMS, through delegations from the Secretary
of the Interior, has authority to promulgate and enforce regulations
that promote safe operations, environmental protection, and
conservation of the natural resources of the OCS, as that area is
defined in the OCS Lands Act (43 U.S.C. 1331 et seq.). This authority
includes the pipeline transportation of mineral production and the
approval and granting of rights-of-way for the construction of
pipelines and associated facilities on the OCS. Thus, whether a
pipeline is built and operated under DOI or DOT regulatory
requirements, MMS, as the Federal land management agency, reviews and
approves all OCS pipeline right-of-way applications. MMS also
administers the following laws as they relate to OCS pipelines: (1) The
Federal Oil and Gas Royalty Management Act of 1982 (FOGRMA) for oil and
gas production measurement, and (2) the Federal Water Pollution Control
Act, as amended by the Oil Pollution Act of 1990 (OPA) and implemented
under Executive Order 12777. (Under a February 3, 1994, MOU to
implement OPA, DOI, DOT, and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
divided their respective responsibilities for oil spill prevention and
response
[[Page 43877]]
according to the definition of ``coast line'' contained in the
Submerged Lands Act, 43 U.S.C. 1301(c) (59 FR 9494-9495)). Nothing in
this regulation will affect MMS' authority under either FOGRMA or OPA.
Under an MOU between DOI and DOT dated May 6, 1976, MMS regulated
oil and gas pipelines located upstream of the outlet flange of each
facility where hydrocarbons were first produced or where produced
hydrocarbons were first separated, dehydrated, or otherwise processed,
whichever facility was farther upstream. The December 10, 1996, MOU
redefined the DOI-DOT regulatory boundary from the OCS facility where
hydrocarbons are first produced, separated, dehydrated, or otherwise
processed to the point at which operating responsibility for the
pipeline transfers from a producing operator to a transporting
operator. (The MOU includes the flexibility to cover situations that do
not correspond to this general definition of the regulatory boundary.)
The MOU places, to the greatest extent practical, producer-operated
pipelines under DOI regulation and transporter-operated pipelines under
DOT regulation.
The 1996 MOU was the result of negotiations that began in the
summer of 1993 and included a high degree of participation from the
regulated industry. In May 1996, MMS and DOT's Research and Special
Programs Administration (RSPA) met with a joint industry workgroup
representing OCS oil and natural gas producers and transmission
pipeline operators led by the American Petroleum Institute. (The
Interstate Natural Gas Association of America also participated on the
workgroup.) The workgroup proposed that the agencies rely upon
individual operators of production and transportation facilities to
identify the boundaries of their respective facilities, since producers
and transporters can best make such decisions based on the operating
characteristics peculiar to each facility. The two agencies agreed with
the industry proposal. Under the industry proposal, MMS would have
primary regulatory responsibility for producer-operated facilities and
pipelines on the OCS, while RSPA would have primary regulatory
responsibility for transporter-operated pipelines and associated
pumping or compressor facilities. Producing operators are companies
which are engaged in the extraction and processing of hydrocarbons on
the OCS. Transporting operators are companies which are engaged in the
transportation of those hydrocarbons.
Additional goals of the 1996 MOU are to develop compatible
regulatory requirements for all OCS pipelines whether under DOI or DOT
regulation and to provide for DOI to act as an agent for the DOT in
identifying and reporting potential violations of DOT regulations at
platforms on the OCS. As an agent, DOI may inspect all DOT-regulated
pipeline facilities on production platforms during DOI inspections.
(DOT-regulated pipeline facilities are those pipeline facilities that
have not been exempted from DOT regulations under 49 CFR parts 192 and
195.) DOI may also perform coordinated DOI/DOT inspections of pipeline
facilities on DOT-regulated platforms. The inspections may include
reviewing any operating or maintenance records or reports that are
located at the inspected OCS platform facility.
The Purpose of This Rule
The purpose of this rule is to implement the new MOU by requiring
OCS producing and transporting operators to designate the specific
points on their pipelines where operating responsibility transfers from
a producing operator to an adjoining transporting operator. The rule
amends 30 CFR Part 250, Subpart J--Pipelines and Pipeline Rights-of-
Way, Sec. 250.1000, ``General Requirements,'' Sec. 250.1001,
``Definitions,'' and Sec. 250.1007, ``Applications.'' Operators have up
to 60 days after the date the rule is published to identify the
specific points at which operating responsibility transfers. In most
cases, the specific transfer points are easily identifiable either
because of specific valves or flanges where the adjoining operations
connect, or because of differences in paint colors that adjoining
operators use to protect and maintain pipeline coatings or surfaces.
For those instances in which the transfer points are not identifiable
by a durable marking, each operator has up to 240 days after the date
the rule is published to mark the transfer points. (The 240-day period
gives operators time to mark the transfer points during customary
maintenance routines.) For pipelines that go into service after that
date, the transfer points must be identifiable on the date service
begins.
The operator must durably mark each transfer point directly on the
pipeline (usually at a valve or flange). If it is not practicable to
durably mark a transfer point, and the transfer point is located above
water, then the operator must depict the transfer point on a schematic
located on the facility. Some transfer points may be located subsea. In
such cases, the operators also must identify the transfer points on
schematics which can be provided to MMS upon request.
For those instances in which adjoining operators cannot agree on a
transfer point, MMS and RSPA's Office of Pipeline Safety (OPS) will
make a joint determination of the boundary.
MMS and OPS will, through their enforcement agencies and in
consultation with the affected parties, agree to exceptions to the
general boundary description (operations transfer point) on a facility-
by-facility or area-by-area basis. Operators also may petition, by
letter, MMS and OPS for exceptions to the general boundary description.
In considering all such petitions, the Regional Supervisor will consult
with the OPS Regional Director and the affected parties.
For existing lease term pipelines, the current designated operator
or lessee(s) of the associated lease(s) will have operating
responsibility for the pipeline(s). For right-of-way pipelines, MMS
will assume that the current right-of-way grant holder has operating
responsibility, unless the right-of-way grant holder informs MMS
otherwise within 90 days after the date this rule is published. (There
are about 130 designated operators of lease term pipelines and 75
operators of transportation pipelines on the OCS.)
Applications for new right-of-way pipelines are required to include
an identification of the operator and a boundary demarcation point on
the flow schematic submitted in accordance with 30 CFR 250.1007(a)(2).
A pipeline segment originally operated under DOT regulations but
transferred under MMS regulatory responsibility as of the effective
date of this rule may continue to be operated under DOT design and
construction requirements, until a significant modification or repair
is made to the segment. When the pipeline segment undergoes a
significant repair or modification, MMS regulatory requirements
concerning design and construction will also be applied to that
segment.
Discussion and Analysis of Comments
MMS received four comments on the Notice of Proposed Rule (NPR).
The commenters were the American Petroleum Institute, Chevron U.S.A.
Production Company, Chevron Pipe Line Company, and the Offshore
Operator's Committee (OOC). The American Petroleum Institute led the
joint industry work group that developed the proposal that resulted in
the December 1996 MOU on OCS pipelines between DOI and DOT;
[[Page 43878]]
consequently, they were supportive of the proposed rule in its
entirety.
The other commenters raised technical issues concerning the
applicability of the rule to producer-operated pipelines that either
(1) cross into State waters without first connecting to a transporting
operator's facility on the OCS, as described in the current MOU, or (2)
were previously subject to DOT regulation under terms of the former
1976 MOU between DOI and DOT.
Both Chevron U.S.A. Production Company and Chevron Pipe Line
Company observed that the proposed regulation did not appear to allow
OCS producer-operated pipelines to remain under DOT regulatory
responsibility. This arises from the way in which regulatory boundaries
in both the 1996 MOU and the proposed rule are described in terms of
specific points on pipelines where operating responsibility transfers
from a producing operator to an adjoining transporting operator.
However, there is no such transfer point on certain producer pipelines
that cross the OCS/State boundary into State waters without first
connecting to a transporter-operated facility. Indeed, there are some
producer lines that flow from wells located in State waters to
production platforms located on the Federal OCS. Regardless of the
direction of flow, producer pipelines that cross the OCS/State boundary
are always subject to DOT regulation on the portions of the lines
located in State waters. The two Chevron companies pointed out the
potential for ``dual regulation'' with respect to these lines and
recommended that the operators of these lines be able to choose that
the entire pipeline remain under DOT regulation.
The Chevron comments demonstrate that implementation of the MOU is
not complete with this rulemaking.
First, the ``Purpose'' section of the 1996 MOU concludes: ``This
MOU puts, to the greatest extent practicable, OCS production pipelines
under DOI responsibility and OCS transportation pipelines under DOT
responsibility.'' This was based on two assumptions--that production
pipeline operators generally would prefer to operate under MMS
regulations, and that transportation pipeline operators generally would
prefer to operate under RSPA regulations. Although these were the
primary assumptions underlying the MOU, we recognize that we did not
fully address all pipeline scenarios when we published the NPR of
October 2, 1997. The NPR would have required OCS producing and
transporting operators to designate the specific points on their
pipelines where operating responsibility transfers from a producing
operator to an adjoining transporting operator. However, the NPR did
not adequately address the possibility that a pipeline may cross the
Federal/State boundary before the transfer point. In that event, once
in the State waters, MMS no longer could regulate the pipeline. This
would be the case even if the production pipeline operator still were
the operator. Because of this limitation, we are preparing a new NPR
that will address regulatory questions concerning producer-operated
pipelines that cross the Federal/State boundary without first
connecting to a transporter-operated facility.
Second, we recognize that an important principle of the industry
agreement leading to the 1996 MOU was to allow, to the extent
permissible, the producing or transporting operators to decide the
regulatory boundaries on or near their facilities. The MOU provides the
necessary flexibility to accommodate the concerns of these operators.
Paragraph 7 under ``Joint Responsibilities'' in the MOU provides: ``DOI
and DOT may, through their enforcement agencies and in consultation
with the affected parties, agree to exceptions to this MOU on a
facility-by-facility or area-by-area basis. Operators may also petition
DOI and DOT for exceptions to this MOU.'' In our October 2, 1997, NPR
we did not state the regulatory language in broad enough terms to
consider operator petitions concerning issues other than the
appropriateness of the transfer point serving as the regulatory
boundary. Therefore, in the forthcoming NPR we will address other
petition matters. These matters would include petitions from operators
of production pipelines who wish to be regulated under RSPA regulations
and petitions from operators of transportation pipelines who wish to be
regulated under MMS regulations.
Three commenters were concerned about pipeline throughput for
pipeline segments transferring from DOT to MMS responsibility because
of differences in approved pipeline Maximum Allowable Operating
Pressure (MAOP) and safety device pressure settings for the segments.
Chevron Pipe Line Company noted: ``There will be cases where, moving
from DOT regulations to MMS regulations may cause undue hardship, e.g.,
for pipelines operating under MMS requirements for high pressure
shutdown settings (15% above normal operating pressure range) and not
DOT (10% above MAOP) may involve throughput reduction to meet MMS
requirements. This change may appear to be minor, but decreasing
throughput capacity will be a major economic impact to the operators.''
Chevron U.S.A. Production Company offered a similar comment.
We believe that there will not be a significant impact on pipeline
throughput, since DOT as well as MMS allows lines to operate up to, but
not higher than, the pipeline MAOP. If the normal pressure operating
range allows, the primary over-pressure protection may be set at the
pipeline MAOP and, when required, secondary protection may be set up to
10 percent above the MAOP. This secondary protection setting will
require specific approval on a case-by-case basis.
Even if there were a reduction of throughput, the MMS provision to
set over-pressure protection 15 percent above normal operating pressure
is needed to shut in the source in case of an abnormal condition which
may cause an emergency at an incoming facility. For example, a line
with an MAOP of 2,160 pounds per square inch gauge (psig) and with a
normal high pressure operating range of 1,000 psig would require an
over-pressure protection setting of 1,150 psig to effectively shut-in
the source. However, if we used only DOT criteria, an over-pressure
protection setting of 2,376 psig (10 percent above MAOP) would be
allowed. That would not allow the orderly shut in of the source and may
further compromise the safety of the facility.
The OOC addressed this concern in terms of the hydrotest
information that is used to establish MAOP for a pipeline. They
expressed concern that pipelines transferring from DOT to DOI
regulations would have to be re-hydrotested. They recommended that, for
any pipeline segments transferring from DOT to MMS regulations after
the effective date of the rule, MMS operational and maintenance
requirements be applied, ``including MAOP determination based on
existing hydrotest information.'' This provision, if adopted, may
result in a higher MAOP for some gas pipelines since they are tested to
1.5 x MAOP vs 1.25 x MAOP as per MMS regulations. For example, a test
pressure of 3,240 psig divided by 1.5 will result in an MAOP of 2,160
psig; but dividing 3,240 psig by 1.25 will result in an MAOP of 2,592
psig.
Because hydrotest information for any transferring line segment may
be at least several years old, it would not be prudent for MMS to make
a blanket acceptance of existing hydrotest information to increase the
MAOP for segments that transfer to MMS regulations. Furthermore, the
MAOP for the lines may be limited by the pipe,
[[Page 43879]]
valves, flanges, or connecting pipeline. MMS will accept the MAOP for
the transferring segments as assigned according to DOT regulations,
pending the results of a public review process to accomplish
compatibility between DOI and DOT regulations.
Under existing 30 CFR 250.1003, the MMS Regional Supervisor may
approve alternative techniques, procedures, equipment, or activities
proposed by the operator, if such measures afford a degree of
protection, safety, or performance equal to or better than that
intended to be achieved by MMS regulations. Thus, operators of
pipelines transferring to MMS regulations after the effective date of
this rule may submit to the Regional Supervisor applications to
establish new MAOP and safety device pressure settings that affect the
throughput of transferring pipelines.
Section 250.1000, paragraph (c)(5), of the proposed rule specified
that ``Pipeline segments designed and constructed under DOT regulations
before [INSERT THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF THE FINAL RULE], may continue to
operate under DOT design and construction requirements until
significant modifications or repairs are made to those segments.'' The
OOC requested that this requirement be modified to read, ``Pipeline
segments designed and constructed under DOT regulations before [INSERT
THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF THE FINAL RULE], may continue to be modified and
repaired in accordance with the DOT design and construction
requirements.'' The OOC maintained that ``Pipeline segments constructed
under DOT regulations are operating in a safe manner now. New
modifications to the segments should match the design and construction
requirements (the DOT design and construction regulations) for which
the original segment was built. This avoids having two design and
construction requirements for the same pipeline segment.''
We have not made this change because the language in the proposal
we published is clear that ``Pipeline segments designed and constructed
under DOT regulations before (the effective date of the final rule),
may continue to operate under DOT design and construction requirements
until significant modifications or repairs are made to those
segments.'' We have retained this language in the final rule. Moreover,
the MOU's intent is that all pipelines operating under MMS regulatory
authority eventually will have to conform to MMS design and
construction requirements.
Procedural Matters
Federalism (Executive Order (E.O.) 12612)
In accordance with E.O. 12612, the rule does not have significant
Federalism implications. A Federalism assessment is not required.
Takings Implications Assessment (E.O. 12630)
In accordance with E.O. 12630, the rule does not have significant
Takings Implications. A Takings Implication Assessment is not required.
Regulatory Planning and Review (E.O. 12866)
This document is not a significant rule and is not subject to
review by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under E.O. 12866.
(1) This rule will not have an effect of $100 million or more on
the economy. It will not adversely affect in a material way the
economy, productivity, competition, jobs, the environment, public
health or safety, or State, local, or tribal governments or
communities. An analysis of the rule indicates that the direct costs to
industry for the entire rule total approximately $360,000 for the first
year, and that in succeeding years, the cost of the rule to industry
would not likely exceed $255,000.
(2) This rule will not create a serious inconsistency or otherwise
interfere with an action taken or planned by another agency.
(3) This rule does not alter the budgetary effects or entitlements,
grants, user fees, or loan programs or the rights or obligations of
their recipients.
(4) This rule does not raise novel legal or policy issues.
Civil Justice Reform (E.O. 12988)
In accordance with E.O. 12988, the Office of the Solicitor has
determined that this rule does not unduly burden the judicial system
and meets the requirements of sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of the Order.
National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA)
This rule does not constitute a major Federal action significantly
affecting the quality of the human environment. A detailed statement
under the NEPA of 1969 is not required.
Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) of 1995
As part of the NPR process, OMB approved the proposed collection of
information under the PRA (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.) and assigned OMB
control number (1010-0108). MMS did not receive any comments on the
information collection aspects in the NPR. The final rule does not
change any of the information collection requirements. The PRA provides
that an agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required
to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a current
valid OMB control number.
The collection of information for this rule consists of: (1)
Reviewing existing pipeline maps, conferring and agreeing with
operators of adjoining transportation pipeline segments concerning the
locations of specific transfer points, and either marking directly on
each pipeline or depicting on a schematic the specific point on each
pipeline where operating responsibility transfers from the producing
operator to a transporting operator; (2) identifying the operator of
right-of-way pipelines if different from the grant holder; and (3)
allowing for petitions for exceptions to general operations transfer
points. As stated under the section, ``The Purpose of this Rule'',
specific transfer points will be easily identifiable in most cases,
either because of specific valves or flanges where the adjoining
operations connect, or because of differences in paint that adjoining
operators use to protect and maintain pipeline coatings or surfaces.
The requirement to respond is mandatory. MMS uses the information
to determine the demarcation where pipelines are subject to MMS design,
construction, operation, and maintenance requirements, as distinguished
from similar OPS requirements.
The regulated community consists of up to 160 Federal OCS oil and
gas lease designated operators and 70 transportation pipeline
operators. There are approximately 3,000 points where operating
responsibility for pipelines transfers from a producer to a
transporter. MMS assumes that about 2,400 (representing 80 percent) of
these transfer points are already marked. Therefore, this rule would
require a one-time identification and marking of about 600 points where
operating responsibility for pipelines transfers from a producer to a
transporter. For the 2,400 transfer points that are clearly marked,
there would be no information burden. The 600 unmarked transfer points,
on the other hand, would require widely-varying times for marking
depending on whether a painted line or a schematic was used to mark the
transfer point.
The public reporting burden for this information collection
requirement is estimated to average 5 hours per response. This includes
the time for
[[Page 43880]]
reviewing instructions, searching existing data sources, gathering and
maintaining the data needed, and completing the required marking. The
average annualized burden over a 3-year period would be 1,051 hours.
Regulatory Flexibility Act
The Department certifies that this document will not have a
significant economic effect on a substantial number of small entities
under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.). While this
rule will affect a substantial number of ``small entities,'' the
economic effects of the rule will not be significant. There are many
companies on the OCS that are ``small businesses'' as defined by the
Small Business Administration. However, the technology necessary for
conducting offshore oil and gas exploration and development activities
is very complex and costly. Most entities that engage in offshore
activities have considerable financial resources and numbers of
employees well beyond what would normally be considered ``small
business.''
DOI's analysis of the economic impacts indicate that direct costs
to industry for the entire rule total approximately $360,000 for the
first year, and in succeeding years, the cost of the rule to industry
would not likely exceed $255,000 annually. These annual costs would not
persist for long, because relatively few producer pipelines are not
already in compliance with MMS safety valve requirements, due to their
adherence to API standards. There are up to 130 designated operators of
leases and 75 operators of transportation pipelines on the OCS (both
large and small operators), and the economic impacts on the oil and gas
production and transportation companies directly affected will be
minor. Not all operators affected will be small businesses, but much of
their modification costs may be paid to offshore service contractors
who may be classified as small businesses. The few operators having to
install new automatic shutdown valves as a result of transferring to
MMS regulation will sustain the greatest economic impact from this
rule. It is impractical, however, to determine in advance which
operators would be so affected, because the operators themselves will
determine the transfer points between MMS regulated producer lines and
DOT regulated transporter lines.
To the extent that this rule might eventually cause some of the
larger OCS operators to make modifications to their pipelines, it may
have a minor beneficial effect of increasing demand for the services
and equipment of smaller service companies and manufacturers. This rule
will not impose any new restrictions on small pipeline service
companies or manufacturers, nor will it cause their business practices
to change.
Your comments are important. The Small Business and Agriculture
Regulatory Enforcement Ombudsman and 10 Regional Fairness Boards were
established to receive comments from small business about Federal
agency enforcement actions. The Ombudsman will annually evaluate the
enforcement activities and rate each agency's responsiveness to small
business. If you wish to comment on the enforcement actions of MMS,
call toll-free (888) 734-3247.
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act (SBREFA)
This rule is not a major rule under (5 U.S. C. 804(2)), SBREFA.
This rule:
(a) Does not have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million
or more.
(b) Will not cause a major increase in costs or prices for
consumers, individual industries, Federal, State, or local government
agencies, or geographic regions.
(c) Does not have significant adverse effects on competition,
employment, investment, productivity, innovation, or ability of U.S.-
based enterprises to compete with foreign-based enterprises.
Unfunded Mandate Reform Act of 1995
This rule does not impose an unfunded mandate on State, local, or
tribal governments or the private sector of more than $100 million per
year. The rule does not have a significant or unique effect on State,
local, or tribal governments or the private sector. A statement
containing the information required by the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
(2 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.) is not required.
List of Subjects in 30 CFR Part 250
Continental shelf, Environmental impact statements, Environmental
protection, Government contracts, Incorporation by reference,
Investigations, Mineral royalties, Oil and gas development and
production, Oil and gas exploration, Oil and gas reserves, Penalties,
Pipelines, Public lands--mineral resources, Public lands--rights-of-
way, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Sulphur development and
production, Sulphur exploration, Surety bonds.
Dated: August 6, 1998.
Sylvia V. Baca,
Deputy Assistant Secretary, Land and Minerals Management.
For the reasons stated in the preamble, Minerals Management Service
(MMS) amends 30 CFR part 250 as follows:
PART 250--OIL AND GAS AND SULPHUR OPERATIONS IN THE OUTER
CONTINENTAL SHELF
1. The authority citation for part 250 continues to read as
follows:
Authority: 43 U.S.C. 1331 et seq.
2. In Sec. 250.1000, paragraph (c) is revised to read as follows:
Sec. 250.1000 General requirements.
* * * * *
(c)(1) Department of the Interior (DOI) pipelines, as defined in
Sec. 250.1001, must meet the requirements in Secs. 250.1000 through
250.1008.
(2) A pipeline right-of-way grant holder must identify in writing
to the Regional Supervisor the operator of any pipeline located on its
right-of-way, if the operator is different from the right-of-way grant
holder.
(3) A producing operator must identify for its own records, on all
existing pipelines located on its lease or right-of-way, the specific
points at which operating responsibility transfers to a transporting
operator.
(i) Each producing operator must, if practical, durably mark all of
its above-water transfer points by April 14, 1999 or the date a
pipeline begins service, whichever is later.
(ii) If it is not practical to durably mark a transfer point, and
the transfer point is located above water, then the operator must
identify the transfer point on a schematic located on the facility.
(iii) If a transfer point is located below water, then the operator
must identify the transfer point on a schematic and provide the
schematic to MMS upon request.
(iv) If adjoining producing and transporting operators cannot agree
on a transfer point by April 14, 1999, the MMS Regional Supervisor and
the Department of Transportation (DOT) Office of Pipeline Safety (OPS)
Regional Director may jointly determine the transfer point.
(4) The transfer point serves as a regulatory boundary. An operator
may write to the MMS Regional Supervisor to request an exception to
this requirement for an individual facility or area. The Regional
Supervisor, in consultation with the OPS Regional Director and affected
parties, may grant the request.
[[Page 43881]]
(5) Pipeline segments designed, constructed, maintained, and
operated under DOT regulations but transferring to DOI regulation as of
October 16, 1998, may continue to operate under DOT design and
construction requirements until significant modifications or repairs
are made to those segments. After October 16, 1998, MMS operational and
maintenance requirements will apply to those segments.
* * * * *
3. In Sec. 250.1001, a definition of the term ``DOI pipelines'' is
added in alphabetical order as follows:
Sec. 250.1001 Definitions.
* * * * *
DOI pipeline refers to a pipeline extending upstream from a point
on the OCS where operating responsibility transfers from a producing
operator to a transporting operator.
* * * * *
4. Section 250.1007 is amended by revising the heading, revising
paragraph (a) introductory text, and adding a new sentence at the end
of paragraph (a)(2) to read as follows:
Sec. 250.1007 What to include in applications.
(a) Applications to install a lease term pipeline or for a pipeline
right-of-way grant must be submitted in quadruplicate to the Regional
Supervisor. Right-of-way grant applications must include an
identification of the operator of the pipeline. Each application must
include the following:
* * * * *
(2) * * * The schematic must indicate the point on the OCS at which
operating responsibility transfers between a producing operator and a
transporting operator.
* * * * *
[FR Doc. 98-21945 Filed 8-14-98; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-MR-P
